IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Donna Miller, :

Plaintiff, :

v. : Case No. 2:11-cv-438

 : JUDGE JAMES L. GRAHAM

New Salem Baptist Church, Magistrate Judge Kemp

et al., :

Defendants. :

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

AND ORDER

Plaintiff, Donna Miller, who appears to be a resident of

Franklin County, Ohio, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in

forma pauperis and a civil complaint against the New Salem

Baptist Church, the Reverend Keith Troy, and Brenda Troy, all of

whom also appear to be residents of Franklin County, Ohio. It

does not appear that Ms. Miller can afford the filing fee for a

civil action, so her motion for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (#1) is granted. For the following reasons, it will be

recommended that the case be dismissed for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction.

I.

28 U.S.C. §1915(e)(2) provides that in proceedings in forma

pauperis, "[t]he court shall dismiss the case if ... (B) the

action ... is frivolous or malicious [or] fails to state a claim

on which relief can be granted...." The purpose of this section

is to prevent suits which are a waste of judicial resources and

which a paying litigant would not initiate because of the costs

involved. See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989). A

complaint may be dismissed as frivolous only when the plaintiff

fails to present a claim with an arguable or rational basis in

Case: 2:11-cv-00438-JLG-TPK Doc #: 3 Filed: 08/12/11 Page: 1 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-2-

law or fact. See id. at 325. Claims which lack such a basis

include those for which the defendants are clearly entitled to

immunity and claims of infringement of a legal interest which

does not exist, see id. at 327-28, and “claims describing

fantastic or delusional scenarios, claims with which federal

district judges are all too familiar.” Id. at 328; see also

Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25 (1992). A complaint may not be

dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted if the complaint contains “enough facts to state a claim

to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Twombly, 550 U. S. 544, 570 (2007). Pro se complaints are to be

construed liberally in favor of the pro se party. Haines v.

Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972). The complaint will be evaluated

under these standards.

One of the requirements for a complaint filed in a federal

(as opposed to a state) court is that the complaint set forth “a

short and plain statement of the grounds for the court’s

jurisdiction....” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1). The jurisdiction of the

federal courts, as a whole, is limited by the grant of

jurisdiction found in Article III, Section 2 of the United States

Constitution, and the jurisdiction of United States District

Courts is further limited to those cases which, by Act of

Congress, the Court is authorized to hear. The two primary bases

for jurisdiction over cases filed in the District Courts

(although there are others, none of which apply here) are 28

U.S.C. §1331 and 28 U.S.C. §1332. The former applies to cases in

which a question “arising under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States” is present. The latter provides

for jurisdiction in suits involving parties from different states

where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 exclusive of

interest and costs.

Ms. Miller’s complaint does not contain the required

Case: 2:11-cv-00438-JLG-TPK Doc #: 3 Filed: 08/12/11 Page: 2 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-3-

statement of jurisdiction. Further, a reading of the complaint

shows that whatever claims Ms. Miller may have - and the nature

of her claims is not entirely clear, but they seem to relate to

some type of landlord-tenant relationship between her and the New

Salem Baptist Church - they neither arise under federal law nor

involve parties from different states. Even liberally construed,

the allegations of the complaint appear to relate either to a

claim by the defendants that Ms. Miller has somehow damaged their

property or has allowed illegal activity to occur on that

property, or that the defendants have threatened her with

physical assault. These are, at best, some type of state law

claims, and do not arise under the United States Constitution or

any federal statute or treaty. Further, all of the parties to

this case appear to be Ohio residents, so the case does not

involve claims between parties from different states. The Court

therefore concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over the

complaint, and the complaint should be dismissed without

prejudice for that reason.

II.

Based on the foregoing, plaintiff’s motion for leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (#1) is granted. Further, it is

recommended that this action be dismissed under 28 U.S.C.

§1915(e) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

III.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that

party may, within fourteen days of the date of this Report, file

and serve on all parties written objections to those specific

proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made,

together with supporting authority for the objection(s). A judge

of this Court shall make a de novo determination of those

portions of the report or specified proposed findings or

recommendations to which objection is made. Upon proper

Case: 2:11-cv-00438-JLG-TPK Doc #: 3 Filed: 08/12/11 Page: 3 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>
-4-

objections, a judge of this Court may accept, reject, or modify,

in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made herein,

may receive further evidence or may recommit this matter to the

magistrate judge with instructions. 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1).

 The parties are specifically advised that failure to object

to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the

right to have the district judge review the Report and

Recommendation de novo, and also operates as a waiver of the

right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the

Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir.1981).

/s/ Terence P. Kemp 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case: 2:11-cv-00438-JLG-TPK Doc #: 3 Filed: 08/12/11 Page: 4 of 4 PAGEID #: <pageID>